Legal Studies Assessment

However this incident should not be used to assess the actions and contribution of all judges. It is very well evident in many cases, such as the case of Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, where the high court judges’ decisions played a very significant role in a historical event, that established the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) and the overturned terra nullius. This case and many others of significance, show that judges provide a crucial service in the effective functioning of the court system through their guidance, experience and vast knowledge of the Australian legal system.

Another key court personnel is the police prosecutor, who represents the state Police when someone has been charged with a criminal offence. They are usually police officers who have had legal training. Generally police prosecutors are involved in summary matters or indictable matters dealt with immediately in local courts. In more serious matters the police prosecutor is replaced by a Crown prosecutor from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the document ‘The Independence of a Prosecutor – A Police Perspective’ written by Detective Chief Superintendent Rod Harvey of the NSW Police Service, reference to guidelines issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW is used to describe the role of the prosecutor. They are described as “ministers of justice”, whose role is to “assist the court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community and the accused according to law and the dictates of fairness”.

The role and contribution of police prosecutors in court, is seen to be very effective in a publication from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) ‘The NSW Police Prosecutor’ by Ken Drew of the NSW Police Legal Services. In this document the police prosecutor is identified as “a major component to the Local Court justice system in NSW”, and the police prosecution service is also seen as a more economical and efficient service compared to the Crown prosecution service. It also remains to be “without public controversy and without suggestion of any lack of competency”.

However in another publication from the AIC, ‘The Paralegal Police Prosecutor – For How Long?’ by John Murray, the police prosecutor is portrayed to be inadequately trained: with only a few weeks or months of fundamental training with the rest being on-the-job experience. This has resulted in inexperienced and unprepared prosecutors having to represent the community. It has also made the police prosecutions branch an unattractive posting and resulted in police prosecutor shortages in NSW. This shortage was reported on in the newspaper article ‘Opposition slams police prosecutor shortage’ by Dylan Welch. The article reports on “court cases being jeopardised due to a shortage of police prosecutors across NSW” due to poorly prepared briefs and unprepared prosecutors.

Though the contribution of the police prosecutor is portrayed to be inadequate, it is nevertheless outweighed by the positive aspects of the police prosecution service. The efficient, cost effective and competent work of police prosecutors are a vital element in inferior court proceedings, and thus contribute to the effective functioning of the court system.

Court officers are another key court personnel that play a significant role in the effective functioning of the court. The court officer is responsible for making sure that matters are organized: for formal opening and closing of court, for calling witnesses into court at correct times, maintaining and providing court files to the magistrate or judge and serving legal orders. They also ask witnesses to take oaths before giving evidence and acts as the jury guard. They insure that the court proceedings are organized and that the whole process runs smoothly. Court officers can also provide relevant advice to prosecutors, plaintiffs or defendants in relation to case practise matters as they have witnessed similar cases before.

Court officers have also been given the power to enforce federal fines, by The Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999. The Bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 (Cwlth) to allow “state and territory administrative agencies and court officers to be used in enforcing federal fines”.

The large administrative workload of court officers was evident in the cases B Gordon v RTA (Feb 2008) and D Smirdof v RTA (Feb 2008) both heard at the Downing Center Local Court on February 19th 2008. The court officer in those cases was witnessed calling and ushering the defendants into the court at the correct times; serving legal orders, such as summonses; and advising the defendants on legal procedures.

Due to the large administrative work done by court officers and the vast knowledge of court proceedings that they have acquired, their role and contribution to the effective functioning of the court system is seen to be very significant.

To conclude, through the use of legislation, cases, media articles and other documents the role and contribution of the judge, police prosecutor and court officer has been assessed. Judges play a central role in the functioning of the court system through their experience of the court procedures, and their vast knowledge of the Australian legal system. While police prosecutors are the efficient and economical representatives of the community in inferior courts. Along with court officers who through their vast administrative contribution and knowledge of court proceedings assist in the effective operation of the court system. Thus it is evident that these key court personnel significantly contribute to the effective functioning of the court system.